Maybe it has been there, but I have never seen my RnD comment in the New York Times. Regardless, your how would I know assertion is logically flawed. Apples and organs it is not. The media says drug companies need their record profits in order to continue RnD, i.e., we do not want a single payer program etc. The liberal media does not argue pharmaceutical companies need record profits to continue advertising, but that is a more honest argument. A large part of medical RnD is done with tax dollars and grants anyway.
What congressional laws favor unions? Big corporations give money to legislators (the shrinking unions do as well), and those legislators make the laws to favor unions? The unions wanted NAFTA? What of Taft Hartley? There are laws about when, how, and if a union can strike; who do think wanted those?
On Detroit. Articles take as a given that the unions get too much; that is the starting assumption. Some of the articles will follow that up with discussion of how the executives have failed and are paid too much. Alternative economic models are off the radar.
You talk about “excess profits,” and I am not sure what you mean. I would like to eliminate all the subsidies distorting the market (inflating profit). Instead the media and you say “excess profit.” Oil, nuclear energy, drug, and food distribution companies should not be getting my tax dollars. Maybe we agree on that?
Sorry if my tone is off; I think most is gray.
But I really wanted to say that the comment made by Mr. Scandale towards the end was the most revealing. He said that if he finds examples in their newpages that they have exhibited a sincere bias, in a way that is truly against what news should be, AND IT IS DEFINITELY COSTING US READERS, then they will address it. That says that if they are violating journalistic principles but their reasers love it, then they will make no adjustments. Is this really what he meant to say? Yet Brook let it go without comment. I absolutely know, after listening to OTM for a long time, that if that same statement had been made by someone from a conservative leaning newspaper Brook (or Bob) would have immediately made a snarky comment to that effect. I think if you are honest with yourself you will have to agree.
Just do what you do and read the letters and don't become schizoid about it. So what if you are liberal! It's time to just do what you do as the conservatives do what they do and not worry about it. As Mr. Hennessy says above, and so eloquently, "You are saying conservative is the natural state of man. I find myself questing that."
The only conspiracy that media allows is the alleged conspiracy of liberal media.
You state challenging authority, questing assumptions, and curiosity is a bias? You are saying conservative is the natural state of man. I find myself questing that.
A book tour by its very nature is a press event designed to convey a staged message, but you all imagine showing a reaction (a protest) is bias. Showing a picture and doing a story that promotes a book, simply because of presidential connections, is a much more ubiquities and rooted bias.
Email addresses are required but never displayed.
On The Media is funded, in part, by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
the Overbrook Foundation and the Jane Marcher Foundation.